The 'tolerant' homosexual community continues its side job as speech police. While appearing on the CBS Late Show, George Costanza (Jason Alexander) referred to Cricket as a 'gay game.' This so upset the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation that it demanded an apology from Alexander, who was all too willing to oblige. This would seem to serve as yet another example that Hollywood's actors are more concerned with being accepted than with speaking honestly.
"My daily life is filled with gay men and women, both socially and professionally," he said in a blog statement released through GLAAD. "I am profoundly aware of the challenges these friends of mine face and I have openly advocated on their behalf. So, I can only apologize and I do. In comedy, timing is everything."
That is a gay apology and here is the exchange that prompted it.
Last year, during an appearance on the O'Reilly Factor, Mitt Romney refused to call Obama a socialist when asked. Instead, he said he would prefer to just say, "he's in over his head," a "liberal," and a, "failure."
Well, the least Romney could do is ask Mr. Obama why he attended a socialist event in 1996.
It's a reminder that the President presented himself as much more progressive during his time in Chicago. In this little-seen advertisement that ran in the Hyde Park Herald in 1996, Obama was listed on a panel sponsored by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), University of Chicago Democrats, and University of Chicago DSA.
Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) = Communists. Allen West was derided for identifying 80 communists in Congress. Imagine if he'd have pointed to the White House too.
Reason #1,965 Not to get excited about Mitt Romney.
Back on May 9th, Buzzfeed posted a find perhaps even more significant because it shows that Obama's gay marriage position never evolved; it changed for political expediency. He's lying... again, which is what socialists do. Here is a document signed by Obama himself. It is a list of answers he gave to questions pertaining to homosexual rights. Note what he wrote for answer #6:
"I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."
Is it possible to "evolve" and "devolve" at the same time?
Uh, can I be against homosexuality without agreeing with this pastor from North Carolina? This is the kind of reaction Obama was probably hoping for when he came out in support of gay marriage.
**UPDATE** For anyone who thinks it ridiculous that Obama would welcome this kind of reaction, consider this excerpt from page 117 of Rules for Radicals, the book penned by his hero, Saul Alinsky:
"An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent... He must create a mechanism that can drain off the underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. Out of this mechanism, a new community organization arises....
"The job then is getting the people to move, to act, to participate; in short, to develop and harness the necessary power to effectively conflict with the prevailing patterns and change them. When those prominent in the status quo turn and label you an 'agitator' they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function—to agitate to the point of conflict."
Some will argue that such an excerpt is actually talking about the agitation of forces who share his position but in reality, if conflict is the ultimate goal, does it really matter who you agitate? This may also go a long way in explaining why Obama came out for gay marriage despite it being politically untenable.
There is a reason why police in Colorado decided to arrest the two lesbians who claim someone spray painted, 'Kill the Gay' (I think the painters ran out of room for the 's') on their garage door. Primarily, because when things like this happen, the crime is very often committed by those who claim to be victims; we see it at OWS all the time. There was also a rash of such behavior back in 2009, which you can check out here.
These are bizarre traits in the left wing mind. When I had an apartment in Florida, a mixed-race couple (woman black, man white) called the local news and police out to their place because 'Ni***r lover' was spray painted on their front door. It didn't take long to determine who did it - the residents.
Anyway, in this case, both lesbians were arrested and refused to submit to lie detector tests. They also had their hands scanned for spray paint residue.
Did Jay-Z suddenly have a homosexual road to Damascus experience on gay marriage? Based on his song lyrics, either that's the explanation or it's something more simple, like being told to get in line with the president's views. After all, Jay-Z did get to sit at the head of the table in the White House situation room.
In any case, the Daily Caller has made an interesting observation about Jay-Z's new position vs. his old, racist one:
Rap mogul Jay-Z publicly backed President Barack Obama‘s newest position on same-sex marriage, an interesting move for an important figure in an industry that is regularly regarded as outspokenly homophobic.
In an interview with CNN on Monday, Jay-Z said he has always believed prohibiting same-sex marriages was “holding the country back.” He said, “you can choose to love whoever you love.”
But a short journey through the prolific history of the iconic rapper’s lyrics indicates that he may not be the best spokesman for gay marriage advocacy.
Here are some of those lyrics:
“What you gay? Nigga Jay straight like Indian hair” – From “2 Many Hoes”
“And since you infatuated with sayin’ tha gay shit” – From “Super Ugly”
“Had niggas mad for real like ‘I wish he was gay’”- From “Hey Papi”
“Hate a nigga like that faggot, get your own”- From “Lucky Me”
“That’s gay, I ain’t into liking dudes no way”- From “La La La (Excuse Me Again)”
Again, if gays today = blacks 50 years ago, the once racist Jay-Z has had an amazing evolution.
Or, maybe he just got his mind right:
Perhaps Jay-Z should consult with Bruce Springsteen about getting in touch with his gay side when writing songs:
It's looking increasingly like the Joe Biden gay marriage gaffe was truly a gaffe and not a calculated distraction on the part of the administration. Obama continues to drop in the polls and now it appears there is a certain segment of black pastors who are withdrawing their support for Obama.
Just days after President Barack Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage, pastors and priests around Maryland took to their own pulpits with their reaction– and in some cases– condemnation of the president.
Derek Valcourt explains the president’s comments have folks on both sides of the issue fired up.
Both sides hope the president’s position helps sway votes in their favor when the issue hits Maryland’s ballot this November.
“I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama said.
When Obama announced that his position on same-sex marriage had evolved, it outraged some African-American pastors like Pastor and Del. Emmett Burns.
“He has said to his base, African-Americans, ‘I am going against your beliefs and your thoughts,’” Burns said.
He’s so opposed to same-sex marriage, he told church members he will no longer support the president and now predicts Obama will lose the election because of it.
Perhaps an unintended consequence of Obama's new public stance is that white homosexuals will begin referring to black heterosexuals who reject gay marriage, as 'racists.'
For you atheists out there... Haven't you ever stopped to ask yourselves why a country's decline always seems to coincide with moral depravity? Perhaps not so coincidentally, as that moral depravity rises, so does our debt. Have you ever stopped to think... never mind, you haven't.
Over the span of less than one week, two of America's once most prominent magazines - TIME and Newsweek - featured a toddler breastfeeding and America's 'First Gay President' on their covers, respectively. That's right, Newsweek has prominently displayed Barack Obama as a homosexual.
Today, Newsweek magazine released this week’s cover via Twitter: a hopey, changey Barack Obama staring into the future, his head swirled with a rainbow halo. The bold font title: “THE FIRST GAY PRESIDENT.” And the cover story is written by none other than Andrew Sullivan, famed Trig Palin truther (he believes the bizarre conspiracy theory that Trig Palin is actually Bristol Palin’s son rather than Sarah Palin’s). The last time we saw Sullivan writing a cover story for Newsweek, he was asking “Why Are Obama’s Critics So Dumb?”…
...The Newsweek cover is obviously a take-off on the old line about Bill Clinton being the “first black president,” but it’s also an unintended backhanded in-kind contribution to the Romney campaign. In the liberal press’ desperate gushing over Obama’s same-sex marriage stance, they’ve alienated more than half the country – every state that has ever held a referendum on same-sex marriage has voted it down. The most polarizing president in history by every measurable statistic has polarized the country yet again – yet Newsweek insists on portraying Obama as a holy figure for embracing an anti-Biblical position, thereby also alienating every religious person in the country.
Anyone still believe Obama is a Christian?
That leads to another question. Why do leftists who reject Christianity, get mad when you say they're not Christians? Shouldn't they agree with you?
Ben Barrack is a talk show host and author of the upcoming book, Unsung Davids
Otherwise known as political death by a thousand Joe Biden gaffes, the public stance Barack Obama formally took on gay marriage this week appears to have an additional consequence even David Axelgrease couldn't have anticipated.
Kenyan Muslim leaders from the coast region have condemned President Barack Obama’s support of same sex marriages.
Speaking to the Nation in Mombasa, Council of Imams and Preachers Organising Secretary Sheikh Mohammed Khalifa accused President Obama of playing god by legalizing what "God Himself objects".
“Simply because he has risen to be the President of a super power does not mean he can now start acting as God. He is nothing in the eyes of God and his plans will not succeed just like those who preceded him in such plans,” said Sheikh Khalifa.
We've been trying to tell the leftists that the Islamic world has a far more intolerant view of homosexuality than do Christian conservatives but they just never listen.
Silence from the gay rights crowd on these Muslim Clerics' total rejection of their lifestyle will not be forthcoming to any major degree. Why? It's actually a psychological phenomenon known as displacement:
Displacement involves taking out our frustrations, feelings and impulses on people or objects that are less threatening. Displaced aggression is a common example of this defense mechanism. Rather than express our anger in ways that could lead to negative consequences (like arguing with our boss), we instead express our anger towards a person or object that poses no threat (such as our spouse, children or pets).
Good luck telling a left-wing homosexual that he's actually angry with the wrong group. He'll get even angrier with you.
This could be a sign that Mitt Romney won't be able to shake that etch-a-sketch completely clean. Last week, after all but sealing up the Republican nomination, it was learned that one of Mitt Romney's foreign policy advisers - Richard Grenell - was openly gay. The news definitely raised the dander of social conservatives already hypersensitive about Romney's very liberal streak.
Now, less than a week later, Grenell has resigned.
Richard Grenell, the openly gay spokesman recently hired to sharpen the foreign policy message of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, has resigned in the wake of a full-court press by anti-gay conservatives.
In a statement obtained by Right Turn, Grenell says:
I have decided to resign from the Romney campaign as the Foreign Policy and National Security Spokesman. While I welcomed the challenge to confront President Obama’s foreign policy failures and weak leadership on the world stage, my ability to speak clearly and forcefully on the issues has been greatly diminished by the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues that sometimes comes from a presidential campaign. I want to thank Governor Romney for his belief in me and my abilities and his clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team.
Perhaps in an attempt to play both sides of the fence, team Romney released a statement of regret that Grenell decided to leave:
“We are disappointed that Ric decided to resign from the campaign for his own personal reasons. We wanted him to stay because he had superior qualifications for the position he was hired to fill.”
Well, of course, by expressing sorrow for the departure, the Romney campaign doesn't alienate the GOProud crowd while also taking the gay rights pinata down from the tree so social conservatives can't beat on it anymore (in this case).
For what it's worth, Van Jones and Al Armendariz both resigned (wink, wink) without being prompted by the White House.
Gay activists love to use the 'heads I win, tails you lose' argument. If you're a heterosexual who has no problem with homosexual behavior, you're ok. If you're a heterosexual who disagrees with homosexual behavior, you're homophobic and suppressing homosexual tendencies.
Here is another example, courtesy of gay rights / anti-bullying activist Dan Savage, who spoke to verbally bullied high school students all across the country. Apparently, if you disagree with him, you're a bully who deserves to be bullied by an anti-bullying, gay activist. Fortunately, angered Christians spoke with their feet and left.
As many as 100 high school students walked out of a national journalism conference after an anti-bullying speaker began cursing, attacked the Bible and reportedly called those who refused to listen to his rant “pansy assed.”
The speaker was Dan Savage, founder of the “It Gets Better” project, an anti-bullying campaign that has reached more than 40 million viewers with contributors ranging from President Obama to Hollywood stars. Savage also writes a sex advice column called “Savage Love.”
Savage, and his husband, were also guests at the White House for President Obama’s 2011 LGBT Pride Month reception. He was also invited to a White House anti-bullying conference.
Savage was supposed to be delivering a speech about anti-bullying at the National High School Journalism Conference sponsored by the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association. But it turned into an episode of Christian-bashing.
Rick Tuttle, the journalism advisor for Sutter Union High School in California, was among several thousand people in the audience. He said they thought the speech was one thing – but it turned into something else.
“I thought this would be about anti-bullying,” Tuttle told Fox news. “It turned into a pointed attack on Christian beliefs.”
Tuttle said a number of his students were offended by Savage’s remarks – and some decided to leave the auditorium.
Look, Christians who believe Savage can be gay all day long shouldn't be forced to agree with the lifestyle. No One is talking about making homosexuality illegal or persecuting homosexuals (no one that I choose to know personally). Why does the Christian belief that homosexuality is immoral or wrong so offend Savage? He is an angry homosexual who is mad at people for not believing as he does. Period. There's a term for that and it's called 'thought police.'
As for the 'heads I win, tails you lose' argument, two can play that game. Perhaps Savage is so angry because his conscience is telling him that his lifestyle is immoral and wrong.
Here's the video:
**Language Warning (did you expect anything else?)**
The fact that Barack Obama had a transgender nanny when he was a child in Indonesia is not a new revelation; it was reported by the New York Times back in 2010. However, the Daily Mail has uncovered some new information:
Barack Obama's former nanny has been revealed as a gay transgender man who made the future president laugh by trying on his mother's lipstick.
'Evie' cared for the boy she called Barry when his mother Ann Dunham moved to the Indonesian capital of Jakarta in the late 1960s.
Openly gay, she would leave the house dressed in full drag - but was very careful that Barack never saw her.
'He was so young and I never let him see me wearing women's clothes,' Evie said. 'But he did see me trying on his mother's lipstick, sometimes. That used to really crack him up.'
Evie apparently entered the prostitution business after being Obama's nanny:
The nanny, who turned to prostitution after the family left and now lives in a slum, met the future commander-in-chief's mother at a cocktail party in 1969.
Dunham, who had moved to the country two years earlier with her second husband Lolo Soetoro, sampled Evie's beef steak and fried rice and was so impressed that she offered her a job.
It did not take long before she was also eight-year-old Barack's carer, playing with him and bringing him to and from school.
Of course, being exposed to a gay, transgender authority figure was not Obama's fault but that doesn't mean it didn't influence him. Perhaps it had something to do with creating Obama's worldview that prompted his calling Sandra Fluke to her that her parents should be proud of her.
Florida Pastor and Rick Santorum supporter O'Neal Dozier sat down with CNN reporter Brooke Baldwin on the day of the Florida primary. The interview started out with Baldwin quoting Dozier's comments about homosexuality. When they moved on, Dozier insisted that God is not a 'socialist.' From there, Dozier discussed Mitt Romney's Mormonism.
Gotta say it. The man doesn't hold back. In fact, I think Baldwin fell out of her chair after the interview.
Go figure. It's a leftwing tactic to throw glitter on conservative politicians. Aside from almost assuredly having some obvious emotional issues, this gay activist either didn't bring enough glitter or didn't get nearly close enough to Bachmann after the latter made a speech in her home state. In fact, to the untrained eye, the attempt actually carried an air of ticker-tape style celebration. After the incident, the gay activist was asked about why she would do such a thing and why glitter has become the new weapon of choice for the gay left.
Her answer was the same thing Lucifer might say: To 'Celebrate Pride.'
Here we go. The battle between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives is heating up within the largest annual meeting for Conservatives - the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). In a classic case of one step up, two steps back CPAC extended an invitation to GOProud only to see two prominent conservative groups, the Family Research Council (FRC) and Conservative Women of America (CWA), drop out.
"We've been very involved in CPAC for over a decade and have managed a couple of popular sessions. However, we will no longer be involved with CPAC because of the organization's financial mismanagement and movement away from conservative principles," said Tom McClusky, senior vice president for FRC Action.
"CWA has decided not to participate in part because of GOProud," CWA President Penny Nance told WND.
FRC and CWA join the American Principles Project, American Values, Capital Research Center, the Center for Military Readiness, Liberty Counsel, and the National Organization for Marriage in withdrawing from CPAC. In November, APP organized a boycott of CPAC over the participation of GOProud.
The American Conservative Union, longtime organizers of CPAC, disclosed just before Christmas that GOProud would be considered a "participating organization," the second highest level of participation. As a "participating organization," GOProud has a voice in planning the conference.
The decision followed two hotly contested CPAC board votes over GOProud. The first vote ended in a tie. The outcome of the second vote has not been officially disclosed, but a source at ACU leaked the decision favoring GOProud to the media.
I seem to remember when Barack Obama and Bill Ayers were targeted for heading up the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) in 2008, the left came back with the argument that CAC's founder - Walter Annenberg - was a conservative. What we're seeing happen at CPAC could perfectly illustrate what could have happened to Annenberg's legacy; it was incrementally tarnished until it was smeared by the likes of Bill Ayers. HERE is an article from The Swamp from August, 2008 on that very subject.
Besides, I'm partial to what Jim DeMint has to say about fiscal vs. social conservatism:
"You can't be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative. A large part of the expansive government is to make up for a dysfunctional society because our culture is falling apart; the family is falling apart."- Jim DeMint, November 2010.
The Blaze has more on the CPAC controversy as well as this video of Ryan Sorba at CPAC last year, in which he condemned the conference for inviting GOProud.
Ted Shoebat, son of former Palestinian terrorist Walid Shoebat, points out a stark bit of hypocrisy on the part of the so-called 'contemporary evangelicals' like Rick Warren. In Uganda, an Anti-Homosexuality Bill continues to garner staunch opposition from the Christian left while persecuted Christians in other countries like Pakistan receive nothing but silence from the same groups. In fact, leaders like Warren continue to implement appeasement and inclusiveness strategies in response to such atrocities.
Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill is making an uproar in the United States, especially amongst contemporary evangelicals, who have rushed to denounce it. It seems that the reason why these mainstream Christians are making denunciations so hasty is to simply protect their own images. The Turkish government throws people in prison for talking about the Armenian genocide; the Buddhist country Bhutan throws Christians in jail for blaspheming against Buddhism. Just in October 7th of this year, the Bhutan government sentenced one pastor Ugyen Tashi to three years in prison for preaching the gospel (Click here for full story). Pakistan has its Blasphemy Law being implemented right now–having Christians sentenced to death for preaching Christianity (Click here for full story). In fact, Pakistan wants to push its Blasphemy Law to a global level. According to the Catholic News Agency, Pakistan has presented a draft to the UN that would condemn the “defamation of religion” and create a global “anti-blasphemy law,” (Click here for full story). Islamic and Buddhist nations are persecuting Christians as we speak, but mainstream evangelicals are not denouncing these tyrannical regimes, they would rather jump on the band wagon of bashing Uganda for its anti-homosexuality bill which they have not even passed yet.
Of course, just one year ago, TIME reported that Warren caved to pressure after he initially didn't condemn Uganda for their anti-Homosexuality bill:
"As an American pastor," Warren said in his statement, "it is not my role to interfere with the politics of other nations, but it is my role to speak out on moral issues." He told the Ugandan pastors that the bill was "unjust, extreme and un-Christian toward homosexuals." The bill's requirement that Ugandans report any meeting with homosexuals to authorities, he said, would hinder the ministry of the church and force homosexuals who are HIV positive underground. He also defended the timing of his denunciation. "Because I didn't rush to make a public statement," he said, "some erroneously concluded that I supported this terrible bill, and some even claimed I was a sponsor of the bill. You in Uganda know that this is untrue." He added, "I oppose the criminalization of homosexuality."
To Shoebat's point, Warren has not directed any such strongly worded statements to Islamic or Buddhist nations who imprison or kill Christians simply for being Christians.
Before I get to Graham...... Chalk up the signing of this strict immigration bill in Arizona by Republican Governor Jan Brewer as one of the hurdles Obama didn't count on when he had dreams of implementing his own special version of Socialist America. Perhaps that's why his rhetoric in response to it has been so strong, including a threat to get Eric Holder's Justice Department to investigate the state for civil rights violations.
First up, Brewer's signing of Senate Bill 1070:
Obama's reaction to one of the 50 states deciding to pass legislation to protect itself.
Now, onto Lindsey "RINO" Graham. In light of the boldly brash claim by ALIPAC President William Gheen at an April 17th Tea Party that Graham is a closet homosexual who is being forced to support immigration reform because Democrats in congress are using it as some form of blackmail (video below), it is at least somewhat noteworthy that Graham appears to be THE ONLY Republican supporting the Democrat push for a new Immigration Reform Bill.
Sources familiar with discussions about the issue say the White House is reluctant to move on the politically polarizing and divisive issue of immigration without bipartisan support.
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina seems to be the only GOP senator on board, but he has told Democrats they will lose his support unless they find another Republican.
Obama called Sen. Scott Brown, R-Massachusetts, to try to get him to sign on, as well as four other GOP senators: Lisa Murkowksi of Alaska, Richard Lugar of Indiana, George Lemieux of Florida and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire.
CNN contacted aides to those senators, and all said none gave the president a commitment to work with Democrats on immigration reform.
Now, onto Gheen, president of ALIPAC. Granted, no one should make such charges without proof - I'm not saying he doesn't have it. They are very strong charges. That said, considering the political climate, there really is no conceivable reason why a Republican Senator would be in support of immigration reform right now. All of the reasons for taking it on at this juncture necessarily involve helping the Democrats in November. Graham's support of it is inexplicable and he should explain it. Otherwise, Gheen's explanation is likely to garner more support.
The accusation that the prospect of Graham's sexual preference going public could be influencing his vote starts at the 7:00 mark.
Not sure why Barbara Boxer agreed to have Barack Obama head to California to campaign for her. It's the kiss of death for any aspiring incumbent. After these six minutes, Obama likely had second thoughts as well. The entire video is worth watching as audience members pepper Obama with chants of, "Don't ask, don't tell" and "Yes, we can".
The reference to the former was meant to show support for repealing the policy. The chanting of the latter seemed to carry a mocking tone. There are two points where Obama is noticeably angry - one about 1/3 the way into the video and the other toward the end.
Obama was obviously very frustrated by the whole experience.
It seems that everywhere you look, the leadership in the United States seems most concerned about things other than our greatest threats. As we plummet toward unsustainable debt and deficits, spending more money via Obama's health care monstrosity is the focus. As the threat of Islamic terrorism continues to rise, the CIA is directed to focus on global warming.
Now this - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has decided to hone in on the unjust laws regarding homosexuality in Uganda. Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media has more:
The State Department may not be able to keep terrorists out of the United States, but Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has enough time on her hands to spend 45 minutes complaining to the President of Uganda about an effort in that country to toughen laws against homosexuality.
The President of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni, says that Clinton spoke to him for 45 minutes about the proposed legislation, which hasn't even been the subject of hearings by the parliament. Museveni, who rules over a conservative East African country that is 85 percent Christian, said that he told Clinton that the bill will be considered by the appropriate authorities and that he had heard that homosexuals come from Europe and recruit young people using money. He said that Mrs. Clinton agreed that such practices constituted sexual exploitation.
45 MINUTES?! If Hillary is interested in squashing rumors about her own sexual preferences, this doesn't help. However, that aspect of the story only warrants mention because of how blatantly out of phase her priorities appear to be here. In today's upside-down world, it would seem that a crusade to end homophobia in Uganda would be far down on the list of priorities for the Secretary of State. Then again, with Uganda being conservative and 85% Christian, maybe her crusade is more about her disdain for Christianity.
If Clinton's focus on Uganda is more about the latter then perhaps - as Kincaid points out - atheist and anti-conservative George Soros may be involved:
Mrs. Clinton's preoccupation with Uganda's opposition to homosexuality may have something to do with the fact that billionaire George Soros, a major financial backer of the Democratic Party and President Obama, has been funding efforts in Africa to promote the interests of "sexual minorities." Obama has embraced the "gay rights" agenda.
Shouldn't the duly elected government of Uganda be allowed to make its own laws? It sounds like the main thrust of the law in question may not even be about sexual preference but instead sexual exploitation. Museveni seems rightly concerned about homosexual Europeans entering his country and recruiting poverty-stricken Ugandan youths for the sex trade. Banning homosexuality in that country might just give authorities more leverage against that type of vermin.
Read the WHOLE THING as there are many layers to the story, including none other than Rick Warren coming down on the side of Hillary on the issue by urging Ugandan pastors to oppose the Bill.
I shamefully admit that I used to be a huge Bruce Springsteen fan. That is, until 2004, when he broke his long-standing rule not to engage in political partisanship and threw his support behind John Kerry. In hindsight, I should have known that Springsteen is the typical liberal. One who feigns indifference while espousing values all can relate to. However, when controversy erupted over his Born in the U.S.A. album over whether or not it was anti-American, such musings were dismissed and Springsteen played the middle of the road, refusing to tip his hand to what the true meaning of the song was.
Those not blinded by admiration for a man who could put on a great show knew exactly what he was saying with his words while those who ignored the message and instead chose to revel in his ability to perform and entertain scoffed at the notion that he meant anything other than what they wanted him to mean.
Springsteen's true colors began to show brighter in 2000 when the song, "41 Shots" was released. Law enforcement officers nationwide had a problem with his glorifying of a victim on the wrong end of a shootout with police. Again, fans of Springsteen interpreted the song in a way that didn't do that because that would be wrong. Those fans rationalized the obvious and just sang along as if the officers who objected didn't "get it".
In reality, those officers "got it" just fine and Springsteen continued to come out from under the rock he wanted to use to protect himself from being viewed as the ideological whack job he truly was. Somewhere along the way, he stopped caring about public perception and decided to cast that rock aside.
On December 9th, the NY DAILY NEWS wrote about Springsteen's support of gay marriage. I was struck personally by the photo of Springsteen shaking Barack Obama's hand while looking completely ridiculous wearing rainbow-colored suspenders. He was either embarrassingly showing his support of gay marriage or imitating Mork.
Obviously, Springsteen was doing the former. However, the question I have is to what extent does he support gay marriage and to what extent does he support homosexuality.
In 1998, when I was still a big fan, Springsteen released an album called, "Tracks". It featured a bunch of songs Bruce had recorded but never released - B sides if you will. I remember at the time questioning my own assumptions about Springsteen whenever I heard one of the songs. It was called, "My Lover Man". I tried on many occasions to rationalize it, thinking that maybe it was one of the outtakes from the movie, "Philadelphia" starring Tom Hanks, who portrayed a homosexual with Aids. Maybe it was him trying to understand a view he didn't understand. Believe me, rationalizing this song to mean something other than a writer that espoused homosexuality is a stretch by any measure.
Kevin Jennings used to be a teacher. He is now Obama's "Safe Schools Czar", charged with keeping schools drug-free. His official title is Director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. When it comes to protecting children from the dangers of sexual activity, calling Jennings (pictured) liberal might be an understatement.
Jennings' appointment provides a quintessential example of how government departments and positions created with good intentions more often than not, go awry over time. FOX NEWS has a detailed report on Jennings that includes how his department came to be:
The (Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools) was created by the Bush administration in 2002. According to its Web site, one of its primary functions is to "provide financial assistance for drug and violence prevention activities and activities that promote the health and well being of students in elementary and secondary schools, and institutions of higher education."
Jennings' foremost crusade seems to be increasing the amount of homosexual education in public schools as founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). Incrementalism seems to be taking place faster than normal these days. An office created in 2002 to protect students primarily from drugs is being headed by a guy who is more interested in another brand of safety.
That leads to the most disturbing revelation about Jennings in the Fox article. Specifically, that Jennings was approached by a male 15 year-old sophomore for counsel about his sexual relationship with an older man:
Another controversy from Jennings' past concerns an account in his 1994 book, "One Teacher In 10," about how, as a teacher, he knew a high school sophomore named Brewster who was "involved" with an "older man":
"Out spilled a story about his involvement with an older man he had met in Boston. I listened, sympathized, and offered advice. He left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years, until he graduated."
The account led Diane Lenning, head of the National Education Association's Republican Educators Caucus, to criticize Jennings in 2004 for not alerting school and state authorities about the boy's situation, calling Jennings' failure to do so an "unethical practice."
Jennings threatened to sue Lenning for libel, saying she had no evidence that he knew the student in question was sexually active, or that he failed to report the situation.
Based on Jennings' apparent outrage, one would have to conclude that he knew that not reporting the under aged boy having sex with an older adult male was something egregious or illegal. Otherwise, it would be something to be proud of, right?
Interestingly, Diane Lenning appears to have been vindicated by an audio recording of Jennings that has been captured by a professor at Grove City College in Pennsylvania. Here is a link to the AUDIO RECORDING of Jennings in 2000.
Visit the site of DR. WARREN THROCKMORTON, the professor who posted the audio and get more information about the speech in which Jennings said those things.
Plenty of sick irony in the Fox story but the sickest kind is the allegation that a man who is heading an office that is supposed to protect children failed to do that when presented with evidence that a 15 year-old boy was having sex with an older man.